Hey, ACLU! SUCK IT!

[The Question]

Shit, I just started another thread with this. lol

 

[SSgt_Sniper]

The ACLU is (and unsurprisingly so) concerned (at least, with regard to the Minutemen) with the migrants' basic human rights.

Last time I checked they were supposed to be the American Civil Liberties Union. So what happened to the rights of Americans to not have their jobs taken by illegals?

 

[TJHairball]

Was it the most direct cause of the crime? No.

Thank you. If you didn't answer "yes" to that question, your case failed the imminence test by your own admission.

 

[TJHairball]

Last time I checked they were supposed to be the American Civil Liberties Union. So what happened to the rights of Americans to not have their jobs taken by illegals?

The same place your "right" to not have jobs outsourced to another country, or taken by legal migrant workers went... it never really existed. You don't have a right to have a job in a capitalist country.

Any chance of protecting it from unfair competition lay with the organization of labor, the strict enforcement of labor laws, and fair global economic discourse.

 

[The Question]

Thank you. If you didn't answer "yes" to that question, your case failed the imminence test by your own admission.

You either didn't read on, or deliberately took my statement out of context.

 

[The Question]

The same place your "right" to not have jobs outsourced to another country, or taken by legal migrant workers went... it never really existed. You don't have a right to have a job in a capitalist country.

But what about the right to equality under the law? Shouldn't that mean that laws are equally enforced? And does a system that allows "catch and release" for offenders who aren't even here legally but doesn't allow that same policy for legally present offenders strike you as being equal? What about the laws in cities like Maywood, CA which have become colonias, where DUIs aren't prosecuted, lack of driver's licenses isn't prosecuted and -- in the case of Maywood itself -- DUI checkpoints and traffic enforcement units have been entirely disbanded so as not to "intimidate" illegal aliens? Does that seem equal to you? Not me.

Any chance of protecting it from unfair competition lay with the organization of labor, the strict enforcement of labor laws, and fair global economic discourse.

We don't need fair global anything -- in fact, global concerns being focused on to the exclusion of local concerns is the problem. American politicians and American businesses need to refocus their attention to America.

 

[SSgt_Sniper]

The same place your "right" to not have jobs outsourced to another country, or taken by legal migrant workers went... it never really existed. You don't have a right to have a job in a capitalist country.

Any chance of protecting it from unfair competition lay with the organization of labor, the strict enforcement of labor laws, and fair global economic discourse.

Okay, whoa wait stop. Where do you get off saying I don't have the right as a LEGALLY EMPLOYABLE CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES to not have my job taken away and given to an ILLEGAL ALIEN NOT SUPPOSED TO BE EMPLOYED IN THE UNITED STATES?? Because scooter, that's some fucked up logic.

 

[TJHairball]

Okay, whoa wait stop. Where do you get off saying I don't have the right as a LEGALLY EMPLOYABLE CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES to not have my job taken away and given to an ILLEGAL ALIEN NOT SUPPOSED TO BE EMPLOYED IN THE UNITED STATES?? Because scooter, that's some fucked up logic.

Where? North Carolina, not that it should matter to you.

Now review the rights you actually have in this society. The "right to not get fired, outsourced, downsized, or otherwise screwed over by The Man" ain't on that list. What, you think this country is run by organized labor?

I'll bet you haven't even been voting for candidates who support the ability of workers to strike effectively, let alone the sort of fringe candidate who supports a right to have and keep a job.

Now, that would be a mighty fine right to have, I'll give you that much. Show me a candidate who supports the right to have and keep a job and I may well support them.

 

[TJHairball]

You either didn't read on, or deliberately took my statement out of context.

The rest was so much garbage... and, unsurprisingly, not consistent with your answer to the question. You're still not getting it, are you...

Imminence.

That question addresses imminence very well. If the answer was "yes," you could claim imminence. If the answer is "no," as you answered it, imminince isn't there. Clearly.

You've simply not been grasping the imminence test very well, TQ. Shall I run it past you again?

 

[The Question]

No, I grasp the imminence issue just fine. I'm just taking each crime individually, whereas you seem to be considering them all collectively, and I'll admit that you drew me into that inaccuracy for a bit, too.

Each individual crossing the border illegally is an individual crime. So did amnesty create imminence through an increase in the rate at which the crime was committed? Yes, it did. Each of those 300,000 additional illegal border crossings per year was attributable to the amnesty. The previous motivators for the crime were certainly present, as well, but the amnesty created an additional motivator to which the INS attributed 300,000 crimes per year. If we eliminate the original motivators and their attendant crime statistics, that leaves the amnesty with 300,000 cases per year to answer for.

So yes, the amnesty established imminence for 300,000 crimes. Did public amnesty discussion on the part of politicians alone establish yet another distinct motivator? That would depend on when the additional crimes began to mount -- before or after the amnesty was actually in effect. I suspect, though, that it was before.

 

[SSgt_Sniper]

Where? North Carolina, not that it should matter to you.

Now review the rights you actually have in this society. The "right to not get fired, outsourced, downsized, or otherwise screwed over by The Man" ain't on that list. What, you think this country is run by organized labor?

I'll bet you haven't even been voting for candidates who support the ability of workers to strike effectively, let alone the sort of fringe candidate who supports a right to have and keep a job.

Now, that would be a mighty fine right to have, I'll give you that much. Show me a candidate who supports the right to have and keep a job and I may well support them.

Dumbass. PAY.ATTENTION.TO.THE.QUESTION. Do you not agree that as a LEGAL CITIZEN I have the right to look for employment, aquire employment, be employed, all without fear of not getting or keeping my job because of an ILLEGAL ALIEN? If I do my job correctly, and show up to work on time, and then get fired so the boss can hire Jose, who the coyote just dropped at the front gate of the joint, my rights as a legally employable person have been violated. If you are too stupid to get that, then I pity you.

 

[TJHairball]

I have the right to look for employment,

Look?

Let's see... freedom of speech and association covers the activities involved in looking for a job. Check, you have a right to look for a job.

aquire employment

Let's see... "someone is required to employ me."

Nope.

be employed

"And I have a right to keep that job, too."

You do have the right to not be fired for particular causes (e.g., race, sex, refusing an employer's sexual advances, etc etc), but that doesn't translate into a right to be employed.

all without fear of not getting or keeping my job because of an ILLEGAL ALIEN? If I do my job correctly, and show up to work on time, and then get fired so the boss can hire Jose, who the coyote just dropped at the front gate of the joint, my rights as a legally employable person have been violated. If you are too stupid to get that, then I pity you.

Now... if you are specifically fired because you are American and Jose, that is an actionable offense. And the only reason to do so is in order to violate labor laws - also an actionable offense regardless of whether or not Jose is legal. (Ask me why I don't buy Mt. Olive pickles.)

However, in many cases it's not a case of firing or hiring based solely on your being American and Jose being Mexican.

 

[TJHairball]

No, I grasp the imminence issue just fine. I'm just taking each crime individually, whereas you seem to be considering them all collectively, and I'll admit that you drew me into that inaccuracy for a bit, too.

And taking each crime individually, we're back to asking the question of Jose: "Did the amnesty bring you over here?" Jose not testifying to that effect, we cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt (indeed, by the statistics, cannot even conclude it likely - roughly 1 in 3 odds) that amnesty brought Jose hither.

And evaluating each individual case individually of the millions of border crossings, an imaginary court going through the entire caseload is unlikely to find amnesty the prime culprit in any case.

There is no imminence here. It must be an immediate, direct, and clear cause... not one link in one of many causal chains involved in influencing migration rates.

 

[The Question]

So now it seems you're ignoring the INS findings that conclude the amnesty was the cause of the increase in crime, then. Not to mention, it still looks like you won't accept the direct causal link between pardoning a crime en-masse and potential offenders deciding that the risk associated with committing the offense just took a nosedive.

In any case, whether you acknowledge the fact that the amnesty actually caused an increase in crime or not (and at least one of our own government agencies does), the fact remains that it didn't work then, and it isn't likely to work now.

 

[SSgt_Sniper]

Now... if you are specifically fired because you are American and Jose, that is an actionable offense. And the only reason to do so is in order to violate labor laws - also an actionable offense regardless of whether or not Jose is legal.

Hey dumbass, that's the whole point. They aren't supposed to be here and I should have the right to go about my life (whatever is going in in said life) without an illegal alien entering into the events of my life for whatever reason. Why? THEY ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE HERE IN THE FIRST FUCKING PLACE.

Do I think someone HAS to employ me? No. But if they are going to employ someone, and it's going to be me or Jose, then it's my right for it to be me because that's in agreement with the law and Jose is not supposed to be employed in the U.S., much less be in the U.S. And you knew this was the entire point the entire time, but like a typical liberal, you had to obfuscate away from the fact that I had a fucking point until I had restated to the point it eventually had to hit you in the head like a frying pan. Damn.

Also, taking a whole statement and breaking it down into convienent little out of context pieces to try to make one look stupid only makes YOU look thick.

 

[TJHairball]

So now it seems you're ignoring the INS findings that conclude the amnesty was the cause of the increase in crime, then.

No, I'm not. Is imminence that hard for you to understand?

 

[TJHairball]

and it's going to be me or Jose,

This is usually not how it boils down. It's usually "Oh, fuck, how can I fill these positions in a hurry?"

Notice anything about the industries that rely on illegals? They're typically the either (a) the ones that hire whoever is willing to work long hours for minimum wage and lousy conditions, or (b) neck-deep in a wide assortment of other labor law violations, which generally involves violating the rights of workers, in which case their not hiring you is (in a really perverse twisted fashion) protecting your rights.

I'm sure you could get hired as a meat-packer at Tyson Foods if you tried to compete with Jose.

If an illegal gets hired preferentially to you because of their illegal status, or their ethnicity, you can take 'em to court. ACLU is probably the only group that would provide you with a lawyer for that case, of course, but them's the breaks.

then it's my right for it to be me because that's in agreement with the law and Jose is not supposed to be employed in the U.S., much less be in the U.S.

No, it's your right not to be discriminated against.

You don't have a right to be discriminated in favor of.

Sure, it's illegal, but it's not a question of violating your rights as a citizen or legal alien. The words you should be screaming aren't "I have a right to that job!" but "That's not fair!"

But remember, when you buy into the principles underlying lassez faire capitalism, fairness isn't a right you have any more than employment.

Sure, it's the right thing to hire the legally resident employee who is legal to work in the coutry, but it's not a violation of your rights as defined in America.

Also, taking a whole statement and breaking it down into convienent little out of context pieces to try to make one look stupid only makes YOU look thick.

Call it taking out of context... I call it snipping irrelevant bullshit, because you churn out a lot of it. I don't feel a need to respond to "U SUCK U LIBERAL! I HATEZ U!"

 

[SSgt_Sniper]

No, it's your right not to be discriminated against.

You don't have a right to be discriminated in favor of.

What part of it's illegal to hire him, he's not supposed to be in this country, what part of hiring Jose is BREAKING THE LAW do you not quite grasp? It's not discriminating to hire someone who may legally hold the job, and the inability to grasp that is part of the problem in this country. And what in god's name made you think I like lassez faire theory? There should be regulation, just not certain crazy ones, and the regulations should be enforced with common sense. I know a couple of people in Arkansas that would kill to get a job at Tyson despite the shitty wage, but they aren't of the brown illegal variety so they aren't even considered. Why? Because if the boss tried to screw them over, since they are legal to be here, (as in native born) they could stand up and say that's against the law, whereas the illegals wouldn't dare. It's bullshit for us that they take jobs unemployed Americans would love to have simply put because it beats starving to death. It's also bad for the illegals, but since they aren't even supposed to be here I have no pity for them.


Also, what part of the law is supposed to protect AMERICAN CITIZENS doesn't sink through your skull?

 

[TJHairball]

What part of it's illegal to hire him, he's not supposed to be in this country, what part of hiring Jose is BREAKING THE LAW do you not quite grasp?

I grasp all of that. Read more carefully, SSgt...

It's illegal. It's not a violation of your rights.

Grasp the difference? It's like the difference between causing an accident and making an insurance claim - closely related, but not always congruent, although folks would like to think you file an insurance claim of some sort every time you cause an accident and survive in a condition to do so.

And what in god's name made you think I like lassez faire theory?

My apologies. I assumed you were in favor of the whole "capitalism" thing. People who don't usually don't associate themselves with what are popularly identified as "conservative" political figures in this day, age, and country, and your ranting about liberals seemed to do so.

 

[TJHairball]

I know a couple of people in Arkansas that would kill to get a job at Tyson despite the shitty wage, but they aren't of the brown illegal variety so they aren't even considered.

Seriously, get a bunch of 'em to apply. Document the crap, track the hiring practices, bring 'em into court for racial discrimination. They'll deny hiring illegals knowingly, of course, but you should be able to bag 'em for racial hiring preferences if the statistics pan out.